The UK Government has been asked whether Greentube Alderney Limited should lose is gambling licence.
Earlier this month the company, trading as Admiral Casino, was ordered to pay £1m. after a Gambling Commission investigation revealed social responsibility and anti-money laundering failures.
Now Conservative Ian Duncan Smith has officially asked whether the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, will make an assessment of the potential merits of revoking the company’s gambling licenses.
“As the independent regulator, it is the Gambling Commission’s duty to ensure that operators comply with the requirements set out in the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice and to take appropriate regulatory action against those operators which fail to comply,” said Stephanie Peacock, Minister for Sport, Media, Civil Society and Youth.
“The Gambling Commission has published its decision on regulatory action against Greentube Alderney Limited, and any decision on revoking Greentube Alderney Limited’s licence lies with them.”
The Gambling Commission and Greentube reached a regulatory settlement where the company will pay £1m. to socially responsible good causes.
It was the second time Greentube has faced regulatory action – in 2021 the operator paid out £685,000 after a Commission investigation revealed social responsibility and money laundering failures.
“This case arose from a follow-up compliance assessment designed to ensure the operator had continued to apply lessons learned from previous regulatory action,” said John Pierce, Commission Director of Enforcement when the latest penalty was announced.
“While we noted that the business had made significant general improvements, further regulatory breaches were still identified. The operator was subsequently required to swiftly put in place an effective action plan designed to remedy all of the identified failings.
“We want to remind all operators that any business found to breach rules designed to keep gambling safe and free from crime for a second time should expect increasingly stringent enforcement action. Any failure to uphold anti-money laundering standards is unacceptable, and today’s action reflects the gravity of the breaches identified.
“We will continue to monitor this operator to ensure they consistently meet the required regulatory standards.”
Greentube’s social responsibility failures included:
- not fully implementing its own policy aimed at ensuring customer limits are based on regular, sustainable income – as opposed to one-off or irregular forms of income;
- not fully implementing its own processes aimed at ensuring documents customers supplied were genuine; and
- not fully implementing its controls to identify indicators of vulnerability or potential harm in a timely manner. One customer supplied a bank statement as proof of address that had a negative opening and closing balance and included numerous transactions to another gambling operator, but the information was not reviewed or escalated until the customer had deposited £4,000 over four months.
Anti-money laundering failures included:
- not always scrutinising available information upon receipt, or in a timely manner, leading to an avoidable delay in the identification and potential escalation of money laundering and/or terrorist financing risks. One customer provided a bank statement showing complex and unusual transactions – including over £100,000 being transferred in and out of the account and a negative closing balance – yet the statement was only scrutinised and escalated four months later;
- not always following its own policy regarding what it refers to as “risky occupations”. In one example the potential increased risk posed by a ‘finance manager’ – who had access to funds which could be misappropriated and laundered – was not recognised or built into the customer’s risk profile, and no steps were taken to mitigate the increased risk; and
- not always fully investigating and escalating accounts showing apparent links to other accounts in a timely manner leading to an avoidable delay in investigating, escalating and acting to mitigate the potential risk of accounts being potentially funded or controlled by a different account holder. In one example the operator failed to consider and escalate an account featuring the same address and surname as another customer (whose account was blocked) who was known to have convictions for the supply of class A drugs.